Why Stop At Birth?

[Jonahdog]

The fact that you seem to be getting along okay knowing that a supposed holocaust is going on this very second.
In truth, you don't really think it is murder.



You've been teaching that it's murder and it's done nothing. It didn't do anything the last 50 years, and won't for the next 50.
Now stop trying to dodge that reality with things like this:



And accept the fact that you're just blowing hot air.

Oh no, Stripe and his buddies do "believe" it is murder. But most of them also "believe" the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Their ability for rational thought is suspect from the jump.

 

[DarkAsylum]

THY SHALL NOT KILL
THIS IS MURDER

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You realize that late term abortion is sometimes medically necessary?

That is a lie from the bowels of hell. It is never right to murder an innocent person just to save someone's life. Furthermore, the New York law allows the baby to actually be born, come totally out, and then be killed. That is outright MURDER and anyone who supports that law should rot in hell for all eternity

 

[DarkAsylum]

That is a lie from the bowels of hell. It is never right to murder an innocent person just to save someone's life. Furthermore, the New York law allows the baby to actually be born, come totally out, and then be killed. That is outright MURDER and anyone who supports that law should rot in hell for all eternity

i agree with you my friend

 

[kiwimacahau]

Shall we look at what the sense of the Exodus passage is?

The Torah does not address the issue directly. The principal biblical source for Jewish law on abortion is a passage in Exodus (Exodus 21:22-23) concerning a case in which two men are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. The verse states that if no other harm is done, the person who caused the damage must pay compensatory damages, but if there is further harm, then he should pay with his life. The common rabbinic interpretation is that if the only harm that comes to the woman is the loss of the fetus, it is treated as a case of property damage — not murder.The later rabbinic sources address the issue more directly, beginning with the Mishnah referenced above. Elsewhere, the Mishnah says that if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, the execution can go forward provided she has not yet gone into labor, a further indication that Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth.

Source:

Further:

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Shall we look at what the sense of the Exodus passage is?



Source:

Further: [/FONT][/COLOR]

Nope. God says it, that settles it:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV



No one claimed it was... What's your point?

The passage quoted refers only to damage to the woman not the foetus. The Hebrew is quite clear.

Nope. It is referring to the baby in the womb being born prematurely and then dying after.

It's the first fetal homicide law.



You're right, it is.

But it doesn't say what you want it to say simply because you say so.

Here's why it's talking about the baby, and not the mother:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life. But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage. Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder. This passage, like Exodus 21:33-36, 22:5-6, and others, teaches that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled Unborn Victims of Crime Act. However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. (And that is exactly how the pagan Code of Hammurabi, section 209, undervalued a child.) However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person. The author Moses (Mat. 12:26) mentions the idea of a baby coming out of the womb twice within three chapters. In Exodus 23:26, he uses the Hebrew word for miscarriage, speaking of barrenness and shaw-kole (miscarriage). But the word at Exodus 21:22 is yaw-tsaw, which means to come out, come forth, bring forth, and has no connotation of death but in fact the opposite. The Hebrew Scriptures use yaw-tsaw 1,043 times beginning with Genesis 1:24 where God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature…” In Genesis and Exodus alone Moses uses this word about 150 times such as in Genesis 25 describing the births of twins Jacob and Esau. Thus the Mosaic law requires the criminal to pay financial restitution to a woman unintentionally injured by a criminal if she "gives birth prematurely." But then if that living being dies (i.e., the baby, soul, nephesh, which Hebrew word is always feminine, e.g., Lev. 19:8; Ps. 11:1) the text then applies the full Hebrew idiom which means that the punishment should fit the crime. If there is harm beyond a premature birth, and the unborn child dies, then the punishment is "life for life."​

From: http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion#Exodus21

You are wrong as is the source you are quoting. No reputable exegesis of the passage will come to the conclusion you and your source do.

Prove it. I dare you.



And yet, you won't even bother trying to provide a rebuttal to it.

Come on.

Show us why my position (and that of AmericanRTL) is wrong. You won't.

My challenge to you still stands, Kiwi.

Prove that my position, and that of ARTL, is wrong, and that the passage in Exodus is not the first fetal homicide law.

 

[kiwimacahau]

My challenge to you still stands, Kiwi.

Prove that my position, and that of ARTL, is wrong, and that the passage in Exodus is not the first fetal homicide law.

The people who actually wrote the OT tell me that it refers to damage to the woman. I accept their POV more than yours.

 

[quip]

There's nothing morally wrong with allowing a baby to die in the womb.

Why?
I thought it was a baby? If things are as equal as pro-life logic leads us to believe, then there's equally nothing morally wrong with allowing a baby to die outside the womb OR it's morally wrong in both cases.
You can't have it both ways.

And there's nothing wrong with removing a baby from the womb if there is a risk to the mother by leaving him in.

..i.e. abort?

But it IS morally wrong to kill the baby in the womb for any reason, both in and out of the womb, at any age.

Allowing it to die in the womb is not killing it?! :idunno:
Boy! You're all over the place here.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why?
I thought it was a baby? If things are as equal as pro-life rhetoric leads us to believe,then there's nothing morally wrong with allowing a baby to die outside the womb

Correct.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a baby to die outside the womb either.

Killing the baby after removal from the mother, however, is wrong.

..i.e. abort?

If by "abort" you mean "to kill the baby", no.

A doctor can remove the baby from the womb without killing him. If the baby then dies, it's a tragedy, but it's not murder.

Allowing it to die in the womb is not killing it?! :idunno:

Just like allowing someone who is on their death bed to die is not killing them.

Just like letting someone who is mortally wounded to die is not killing them.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The people who actually wrote the OT

Have been dead for a long time.

tell me

Are you claiming that you've spoken to dead people?

If so, you may need to get help.

that it refers to damage to the woman.

A plain reading of scripture reveals that it is talking about harm that comes to the child, not to the mother.

I accept their POV more than yours.

Then you should accept that the people who wrote the OT were talking about the baby in the passage in Exodus we are discussing.

The people who wrote the OT wrote it plainly enough for anyone to understand it.

The passage in question is no different.

 

[quip]

Correct.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a baby to die outside the womb either.

Killing the baby after removal from the mother, however, is wrong.



If by "abort" you mean "to kill the baby", no.

A doctor can remove the baby from the womb without killing him. If the baby then dies, it's a tragedy, but it's not murder.



Just like allowing someone who is on their death bed to die is not killing them.

Just like letting someone who is mortally wounded to die is not killing them.

You'd allow a baby to die of an illness or injury?!
That's an odd take on pro-life.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You'd allow a baby to die of an illness or injury?!
That's an odd take on pro-life.

If there's nothing that can be done to save the baby, there's nothing wrong with allowing the baby to die. Killing the baby, however, is still murder.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Have been dead for a long time.



Are you claiming that you've spoken to dead people?

If so, you may need to get help.



A plain reading of scripture reveals that it is talking about harm that comes to the child, not to the mother.



Then you should accept that the people who wrote the OT were talking about the baby in the passage in Exodus we are discussing.

The people who wrote the OT wrote it plainly enough for anyone to understand it.

The passage in question is no different.

They were not. It quite clearly refers to damage to the woman not to the foetus as the Bible clearly considers the foetus to be not fully human.

 

[quip]

If there's nothing that can be done to save the baby, there's nothing wrong with allowing the baby to die. Killing the baby, however, is still murder.

Then you're not allowing it to die. "Allowing" infers the refusal of capable intervention; ignoring the power to alter the current circumstances if possible...here being the circumstance of death for the baby in question.

If you morally allow death pre-natal then you must equally allow it after birth. The pro-life logic is clear.

 

[JudgeRightly]

They were not. It quite clearly refers to damage to the woman not to the foetus as the Bible clearly considers the foetus to be not fully human.

So, before Jesus was born, he wasn't fully human?

The Bible refers to Jesus in Mary's womb as a CHILD.

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” - Matthew 1:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew1:23&version=NKJV

Which means you're clearly wrong.

You still need to show why Exodus 21:22-25 is not referring to the child in the womb.

I have shown you why it is.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Again, here is what those who actually speak the language have to say:

The Torah does not address the issue directly. The principal biblical source for Jewish law on abortion is a passage in Exodus (Exodus 21:22-23)concerning a case in which two men are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. The verse states that if no other harm is done, the person who caused the damage must pay compensatory damages, but if there is further harm, then he should pay with his life. The common rabbinic interpretation is that if the only harm that comes to the woman is the loss of the fetus, it is treated as a case of property damage — not murder.The later rabbinic sources address the issue more directly, beginning with the Mishnah referenced above. Elsewhere, the Mishnah says that if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, the execution can go forward provided she has not yet gone into labor, a further indication that Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth.

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you're not allowing it to die. "Allowing" infers the refusal of capable intervention; ignoring the power to alter the current circumstances if possible...here being the circumstance of death for the baby in question.

If you morally allow death pre-natal then you may equally allow it after birth. The logic is clear.

Allowing a dying person to die is not wrong, even if the person is a baby.

Intentionally killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong, because it's murder.

If the baby is dying, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent his death, then there is nothing wrong with allowing the baby to die.

 

[quip]

Allowing a dying person to die is not wrong, even if the person is a baby.

Intentionally killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong, because it's murder.

If the baby is dying, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent his death, then there is nothing wrong with allowing the baby to die.

Are you thick?
You're not "allowing" the baby to die in the above scenario any more than you're "allowing" the sun to rise tomorrow.
Your arrogance is appalling.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you thick?

No, but apparently, you are.

You're not "allowing" the baby to die in the above scenario any more than you're "allowing" the sun to rise tomorrow.
Your arrogance is appalling.

Therefore.... "We should kill the baby if it can't be saved"?

 

[quip]

No, but apparently, you are.

Classic! :chuckle:

Therefore.... "We should kill the baby if it can't be saved"?

That's what your pro-life logic seems to ironically allow for.